Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Joe Brolly and opt-out law for organ donation

24567…10

Comments

  • #32
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    While I'm sure it's unfounded and a bit irrational, I think the concern that a lot of people who would say no might have is that life support might be switched off sooner if someone thought your organs were useful for someone else.

    I'm sure that's not the case, but I think it's the niggling worry that some people have about the idea of automatic organ donation.


  • #33
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    I have a tattoo

    "Organ donor, take what you need"*






    *actually I don't have this but it'd be kinda cool to have.


  • #34
    Uaru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭Uaru


    If they take my lungs on earth how will I smoke in heaven?


  • #35
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Starokan wrote: »
    I like the idea of an opt out system, I'd imagine a lot of people go through life without ever considering organ donation at all. Something like opt out would make it much more of a discussed topic and perhaps result in more donations being available.

    All it will be is a question on the driving license form i.e Tick if you wish to opt-out _


  • #36
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Uaru wrote: »
    If they take my lungs on earth how will I smoke in heaven?

    If you smoke enough to be worried about that, they might not want your lungs. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Very easily. There are waiting lists for organs. There would be a list of people opting to donate organs. When someone needs to be put on the waiting list, they're being put so will be dependent on being on the other list.

    Not a hope. There is no (scrupulous) medical professional in the world that would get on board with a system like that. Not a chance in hell.


  • #38
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Your organs are now public property? If you feel strongly enough about it, you should carry a donor card and inform your next of kin. Where does it end once your body is no longer yours? Can they take organs from those in long term comas with no chance of recovery? If these organs are so valuable in the eyes of the state, should the law be altered to allow euthanasia if a person donates their organs in return?


  • #39
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Iang87 wrote: »


    As for those saying some form of incentive please seriously get a grip not everything in this world is money based

    The healthcare system is...........


  • #40
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    All it will be is a question on the driving license form i.e Tick if you wish to opt-out _

    My understanding is that an opt-out system would be based on a State-run, centralised database.


  • #41
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    Manach wrote: »
    I would be against this State imposing harvesting of organs and their presumption that unless otherwise stated, anything not explicitly stated is theirs by default ownership. People have a fundamental right of ownership over items that continues beyond death until certain legal forms are followed into the winding up of the estate. For the State to overturn this, and have their employees intrude into one of the most stressful time in a family's existence shows an insensitivity that only exists in a modern state that has tipped over into bureaucratic madness.
    For the record, I carry an organ donor card.

    I will happily be harvested but imo an opt-out system isnt the best idea it would be better it it was a mandatory question on state documentation (passports, DL, social welfare forms). A yes or no question with the automatic assumption if you manage to avoid all those then your not a donor

    imo that would eliminate the lazy factor and will not give the state perceived ownership of organs


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    If these organs are so valuable in the eyes of the state, should the law be altered to allow euthanasia if a person donates their organs in return?
    Euthanasia should be allowed without the prerequisite of looking at this issue.


  • #43
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    Your organs are now public property? If you feel strongly enough about it, you should carry a donor card and inform your next of kin. Where does it end once your body is no longer yours? Can they take organs from those in long term comas with no chance of recovery? If these organs are so valuable in the eyes of the state, should the law be altered to allow euthanasia if a person donates their organs in return?

    You're letting your imagination run away with you.

    Opt-out systems work extremely well in several countries and (although I am open to correction on this) these issues have not arisen.


  • #44
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,365 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    A good incentive might be to give organ donors free healthcare. I wonder how many would be in favour of it then!


  • #45
    Mr Porridge
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 76 ✭✭Mr Porridge


    Tasden wrote: »
    I think its a great idea, those who feel strongly enough about not donating can opt out, those who are on the fence can have the decision made for them once they are dead. Alot of people are against anything involving the eyes though (never understood this myself but it seems to be common enough) so I wonder would that be opt out separately.

    Well if i'm going to be a ghost then I dont want to be a blind ghost.


  • #46
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    NTMK wrote: »
    I will happily be harvested but imo an opt-out system isnt the best idea it would be better it it was a mandatory question on state documentation (passports, DL, social welfare forms). A yes or no question with the automatic assumption if you manage to avoid all those then your not a donor

    imo that would eliminate the lazy factor will not giving the state perceived ownership of organs

    I agree to an extent - I think a mandatory choice system would be a better option than opt-in; but I still think a well-run, 'soft' opt-out system is the best.


  • #47
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    My name is URL wrote: »
    A good incentive might be to give organ donors free healthcare. I wonder how many would be in favour of it then!
    This country would never be that awesome.


  • #48
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    All it will be is a question on the driving license form i.e Tick if you wish to opt-out _

    What about people who dont drive?


  • #49
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    iwantmydinner wrote: »
    You're letting your imagination run away with you.

    Opt-out systems work extremely well in several countries and (although I am open to correction on this) these issues have not arisen.

    But it boils down to the question, who owns your organs, the State or you?


  • #50
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    But it boils down to the question, who owns your organs, the State or you?

    You can't own anything, after your death.


  • #51
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    So you believe the State have the right to harvest your organs without your specific consent, yes or no?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    What about people who dont drive?
    NTMK posted something similar.
    NTMK wrote: »
    I will happily be harvested but imo an opt-out system isnt the best idea it would be better it it was a mandatory question on state documentation (passports, DL, social welfare forms). A yes or no question with the automatic assumption if you manage to avoid all those then your not a donor

    imo that would eliminate the lazy factor will not giving the state perceived ownership of organs


  • #53
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    So you believe the State have the right to harvest your organs without your specific consent, yes or no?

    Em, I've been very clear about this. I'm fully in favour of an opt-out system, in which case, I would NOT opt-out.

    ETA: In an opt-out system, choosing not to opt-out = specific consent for organ donation.

    Also: why do you use the term 'harvest'? Organs are generally retrieved.


  • #54
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    But it boils down to the question, who owns your organs, the State or you?

    Well if that bothers you, you should already have been asking that question. You can't, for example, demand that your body be left sitting on the couch in front of the TV for years after you die. Even if your family agrees. You can't be buried in your back garden either, nor be taken to a taxidermist as far as I am aware.


  • #55
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    iwantmydinner wrote: »
    Em, I've been very clear about this. I'm fully in favour of an opt-out system, in which case, I would NOT opt-out.

    Also: why do you use the term 'harvest'? Organs are generally retrieved.

    Well your vision of a socialist/authoritarian utopia where a simple law change makes your very body state property to do with as they wish, is not a view of paradise that I share, comrade.


  • #56
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    How about a system whereby, one isn't forced to donate their organs, but if they want to be on a waiting list they'd have to be willing to donate their organs themselves. Doesn't seem particularly equitable for me to give my organs on to someone who'd not be willing to do the same.

    They dont apply these criteria when giving people blood donations.


  • #57
    Nerdlingr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,381 ✭✭✭Nerdlingr


    I'm for an opt-out system. They can take whatever they want, I won't be needing it. If any of my organs can save a life then brilliant.
    The next of kin thing as well... Is it not the case you discuss with them your wishes and get them to sign your card and thats it? once they sign its binding?


  • #58
    my teapot is orange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭my teapot is orange


    I have three view on this topic

    (i) It should be an opt-out system so that it doesn't rely on people finding the time/motivation/thinking about it

    (ii) People who choose to be in the system i.e. be donors should get priority on the list if they ever need an organ. I don't entertain any of this, "I'm squeamish, I don't want to give away my organs, but if I need one it's fine, I'll get over my squeamishness".

    (iii) Family consent should come into it a lot less. They shouldn't be entitled to override your views. If you wanted to give your organs to help others, no family member should be allowed to say no, anymore than if you willed a stranger a house.


  • #59
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Well if that bothers you, you should already have been asking that question. You can't, for example, demand that your body be left sitting on the couch in front of the TV for years after you die. Even if your family agrees. You can't be buried in your back garden either, nor be taken to a taxidermist as far as I am aware.

    But you can decide if you want to be buried, cremated, your ashes scattered at sea etc. YOU have the choice of what happens to your remains, not a desk bound bureaucrat nor a scalpel welding surgeon.


  • #60
    Tasden
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,166 ✭✭✭Tasden


    Also, just in case anyone wasn't aware, if you donate your organs, they treat the process like they would if you were alive- they close you up neatly and all the rest- its not like they take what they want and off they go. Sometimes people are put off by it, thinking that they'll be left torn open or whatever, its all done respectfully and whatnot.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    So you believe the State have the right to harvest your organs without your specific consent, yes or no?

    This is a no-brainer: of course "the state" should have the right to harvest a person's organs without specific consent.

    I have my own opinions about specific scenarios (for example the taking of organs from criminals and so forth) but it really isn't relevant.

    The prodigious waste of life is being maintained by reprehensible supernatural beliefs about the sanctity of the body.

    If you're dead, your body is fair game for medical professionals to use to save other lives.

    I think the science people are working on growing organs now? In the future it may negate organ-donors. But for the time being there is no grounds for debate. We shouldn't allow policy to be directed by the supernaturally fuelled feelings of self-involved man-children.


Advertisement